Leonard Smith probably doesn’t trust the man with the Texaco star.

For those that weren’t around when the only “X”s that people got heated over were in a low-tech amusement game called Tic Tac Toe, that’s a reference to a Texaco gas TV commercial from the 1960s.

It was back when $4.19 came just shy of filling a tank with gas.

It was when you’d plunk down a dollar for gasoline and you’d get Blue Chip Stamps.

If you went whole hog and spent $5 to fill up, you’d be rewarded with a free drinking glass.

Either way, an attendant would clean your windshield and check your oil.

Today, you’re lucky if there is even water, let alone a squeegee, to clean your windshield.

And if there is water, the odds are it looks like a sample from a Chevron oil spill off of the Santa Barbara coast.

As for the oil, there’s probably no one on the payroll who would even know where to start to look so they can check it.

It was back when people were blissfully oblivious — or least acted so — to the dangers of smog.

Times change.

Which is just the point Leonard Smith was making at Thursday’s Manteca Planning Commission meeting.

The Manteca resident, and former planning commission member, was on hand to voice his opinion that the city was insane to keep approving more gas stations.

He’s not the first to do so.

Two years ago, Dave Atherton and a few others did the same during the approval process for the Chevron station at Union Road and Atherton Drive.

Dave is no relation of the Manteca developer of the same name or the Stockton lawyer/citizen solider who was one of the main driving forces behind the G.I. Bill of Rights and for whom Atherton Drive is named.

He is the Manteca resident who was one of the organizers behind the annual electric vehicle expos conducted in April in the Orchard Valley parking lot kitty corner across from what is now the new Chevron.

You may have figured out by now that Leonard and Dave aren’t part of those who express frustration that Manteca is “allowing” more gas stations attached to the obligatory convenience store be built instead of snagging, let’s say, a Cheesecake Factory for the Family City.

And they aren’t exactly rabid environmentalists although one of Smith’s passions is spreading word about how sensible solar power systems are while Dave is clearly an EV advocate.

Both have cribbed their remarks in the past to both the planning commission and previous city councils by referencing the year 2035.

In case you have been standing around for the last 16 years doing nothing but waiting on a platform in Bakersfield to catch a high speed train going from Los Angeles to San Francisco while tuning out the world, 2035 is the state-imposed drop dead date ending the sale of new cars in California powered by gasoline.

It may be end up being pushed back a bit just like air quality initiatives in California, where the mandate got ahead of the private sector’s ability to comply and the state’s Air Resources Board tweaked the deadline as they did with yard equipment employing two-stroke engines.

But the odds are great what passes for a “gas station” today in 2045 will seem more Fred Flintstone than George Jetson in the proverbial rear view mirror.

From their perspective, it is a fool’s folly for Manteca to keep rolling out gas stations as if they are coming off a Model T assembly line.

It is rooted in the greenhouse gas strategy government has adopted.

In a way, it isn’t much different than what this country did with automobile smog.

The big difference is California when it came to reducing air pollution by more than half while the state population more than doubled is simple. The goal was never to reach absolute zero.

That’s not the same when it comes to manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

Leonard, et al, allude to the declining economic model that gas stations appear to be for small business owners as well as significant cleanup costs associated when gas stations are converted or abandoned.

Rest assured, the folks over the Altamont in San Ramon, where Chevron is headquartered, have the same concerns.

This is where the old adage “times change” comes into play.

Do you see a man wearing an olive drab shirt and work pants along with a bow tie, dress shoes, and a Good Humor-style cap/hat in charge when you pull into a Texaco station today?

Chevron doesn’t see that either.

It is why they stress they are in the energy business, not the oil-gas business.

Nor do they believe, rightfully so, that they can sell gasoline forever.

But they are not blinded by the assumed fact that all zero-emission vehicles will be electric.

Hydrogen has real potential.

And so does compressed “natural gas”, especially that produced by reducing methane emissions such as through the treatment of wastewater and such.

Yes, the process isn’t 100 percent clean through the entire chain needed to produce CNG. The same is true of EVs when it comes to creating some type of pollution at some point in the process that helps fuel acceleration of manmade contributions to climate change

And even if most vehicles are electric, Chevron et al are likely fairly certain people can’t rely 100 percent on home chargers to fuel their travel.

It is why the new Circle K planned for Union and Lathrop roads in Manteca will have 6 to 8 EV chargers upfront instead of simply being wired to add them later.

Then there is also the fact EV drivers get the munchies just like those that drive vehicles reliant on internal combustion engines.

The basic reasons will exist in 2045 for people to access Extra Mile convenience stores at a Chevron fueling station as it does now.

It may not look the same, but then again nothing does over time.

As for economic viability, the real money maker for the gas station/convenience store combos are the Slurpee sales and not the unleaded gas that has razor thin profit margins.

None of this is to say Leonard is wrong in calling for a ban on new gas stations in Manteca.

But he is barking up the wrong tree.

The planning commission doesn’t decide municipal policy. The City Council does.

What Leonard should do is appear at every council meeting — and enlist those like-minded to join him — until a council member agrees to sponsor the placement of the question on a meeting agenda for consideration.

Council members can’t hide behind the “free enterprise” and “its allowed under zoning”.

Whether additional gas fueling pumps are allowed in Manteca, is a call they can clearly make.

Petaluma has outlawed new gas pumps.

So has Rohnert Park, American Canyon, Calistoga, San Anselmo, Fairfax, Yountville, Cotati, Santa Rosa, Novato, Windsor, and Sebastopol.

Los Angeles, and even Angels Camp in the Gold Country, have pending bans with Sacramento proposing to do the same.

Even if Leonard doesn’t succeed in getting a Manteca ban, at least residents will know where the people they elect to lead the city stand.

But then again, it all may be academic.

There are no less than five more gas stations approved or in the city’s approval process.

And there is likely at least one more proposal being prepared for submission.

It is, however, disingenuous for anyone on the council to dismiss such inquiries as to why the city can’t say no to more gas stations because apparently they can under the authority they have setting  policy for a general law city in California.

Petaluma wasn’t stopped from doing so when it started the ball rolling in 2021.

Nor is the state or courts stopping Angels Camp with 3,667 residents and Los Angeles with 3.89 million residents from following suit.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com